Government Insurance Mandate

[Harrington Matthew P.]

This question may already have been discussed on the list, so please excuse my asking it again if it has.
 
I'm curious about the idea that the proposed health care bill will require a government mandate, requiring individuals to buy insurance.  On what basis could one argue that the federal government can impose such a personal mandate.  I suppose it would be somewhere under the commerce clause, but is this not a bridge too far?  I understand regulating the insurance companies as obvious participants in commerce.  But how does one reach individuals?  Are individuals in commerce simply by being here?  Is the argument that individuals who refuse to have insurance are substantially affecting commerce in the aggregate (i.e., Wickard)?  If so, where does this end?
 
I'm sure I'm missing something obvious here and would be grateful if someone could set me straight.
 
Thanks.
 
-------------------------
Matthew P Harrington
Professeur titulaire
Faculte de droit
Universite de Montreal
-------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 3841 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20091218/2d879687/attachment.bin>